German support for Israel a 'legal and moral mistake' - Law and ethics professor Janina Dill

Summary of YouTube Video:

Key Concepts:

• Genocide Convention: International treaty outlining the duty to prevent and not be complicit in genocide.
• Duty to Prevent Genocide: Legal obligation of states to use reasonably available means to deter genocide when a serious risk is known.
• Complicity in Genocide: Involvement of a state in another state's genocide, requiring awareness or knowledge of the perpetrator's genocidal intent.
• Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Political concept with a legal basis in the Genocide Convention, emphasizing the duty to prevent genocide.
• Capacity to Influence: The ability of a state to affect the actions of another state, varying based on bilateral relations.
• International Legal Order: The system of treaties, conventions, and norms governing relations between states.
• Genocidal Intent: The specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part, a key element in proving genocide.
• International Court of Justice (ICJ): The principal judicial organ of the UN, responsible for settling disputes between states.

1. Legal Consequences for Germany's Support of Israel:

• Germany is already facing legal challenges in domestic courts regarding continued arms exports to Israel.
• Nicaragua has filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, alleging failure to prevent genocide, complicity in genocide, and failure to enact duties under the Geneva Convention.

2. UN Report's Impact on Pressure to Act:

• The UN report increases pressure on Germany by providing plausible arguments for awareness of genocidal intent within Israel.
• Germany could be found in violation of the Genocide Convention in two ways: failure to prevent and complicity.
• The duty to prevent genocide arises when a state becomes reasonably aware of a serious risk, which arguably has been the case for months regarding Gaza.
• Complicity requires a higher threshold of proof, needing awareness or knowledge of genocidal intent. The UN report contributes to this awareness.

3. Responsibility to Protect and the Duty to Prevent:

• The responsibility to protect is a political concept rooted in the legal duty to prevent genocide, as outlined in the Genocide Convention.
• States must use all reasonably available means to deter genocide once a serious risk is known.
• The ICJ already alerted states in January 2024 to the risk of genocide in Gaza, putting them on notice.

4. Expected Actions to Prevent Genocide:

• States must use their capacity to influence Israel to change course.
• Specific actions include:
  • Arms embargoes.
  • Trade sanctions and suspension of trade relations.
  • Diplomatic protests.
• Germany has not exhausted its capacity to influence Israel.

5. Germany's Response and Logical Error:

• Germany's stated position of waiting for a court ruling on whether Israel is committing genocide is a "logical error."
• The duty to prevent is obsolete once a court confirms genocide, as prevention is no longer possible.
• Genocide cases before the ICJ can take over a decade to reach a verdict, making this approach too late.

6. Germany's Unique Relationship with Israel:

• German politicians cite a unique relationship and responsibility to Israel's right to exist, supposedly enabling them to exert pressure.
• However, Germany's actions, such as asking for humanitarian aid, have been largely ineffective.
• Germany has diplomatically shielded Israel from UN measures and stronger EU sanctions.
• Germany has not clearly articulated that Israel is not complying with the law or letting enough aid in, nor has it threatened serious sanctions for non-compliance.

7. Germany's Stance on Genocide in Myanmar vs. Gaza:

• In the case of The Gambia vs. Myanmar, Germany intervened as a third party, urging the court to consider inferring genocidal intent from a pattern of conduct.
• Germany cautioned that a high evidentiary standard for genocidal intent could hinder the diagnosis of genocides.
• This contrasts sharply with Germany's reaction to allegations against Israel, where it emphasizes the high evidentiary standard as a reason to doubt genocide.

8. Impact of German History (Holocaust):

• Germany's attempt to deal with its history by not holding Israel accountable is a mistake, both morally and legally.
• The Holocaust should compel Germany to stand up for victimized groups and use its strong relationship with Israel to exert influence.

9. Potential Repercussions for Failure to Prevent Genocide:

• Significant doctrinal and jurisdictional hurdles may prevent courts from issuing clear verdicts against Germany.
• Even with a guilty verdict, the ICJ lacks an international police force to enforce orders.
• Germany is already undermining its standing in the international system, losing moral authority and the ability to effectively appeal to international law.
• This policy does not serve Israel and has abandoned the Palestinians.

10. Damage to International Law:

• International law, particularly rules on the use of force and constraints on violence, is in a state of crisis.
• Germany is contributing to this crisis by not standing in the breach left by the United States.
• This could lead to a longer-term erosion of international law.

Synthesis/Conclusion:

Germany's response to allegations of genocide in Gaza, particularly its support for Israel, is facing increasing legal and moral scrutiny. Despite its historical responsibility and unique relationship with Israel, Germany's actions are seen as insufficient to prevent potential genocide and are undermining the international legal order. The country's stance is inconsistent with its approach to other alleged genocides and is weakening its standing on the global stage. The expert suggests Germany needs to change course and actively use its influence to ensure Israel complies with international law, rather than hiding behind diplomatic gestures and legal technicalities.